To:G. V. PLEKHANOV

Written:Written at the end of October 1905, in Geneva (local mail)Published:First published in 1926.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages363-366.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearGeorgi Valentinovich,

Iam writing this letter to you because I am convinced that the need for
Social-Democratic unity is a question that can no longer be put off, and the
possibility for it is now greater than ever. Two reasons prevent me from further
postponing a direct approach to you: 1) the founding of a legal
Social-Democratic newspaper,Novaya Zhizn, in St. Petersburg, and 2)
the events of the last few
days.[1]Even if these events do not
lead to our returning to Russia very soon, at any rate this return is now very,
very near, and the Social-Democratic newspaper provides an immediate basis for
the most serious joint work.

Thatwe Bolsheviks earnestly desire to work together with you is something I
need hardly repeat to you. I have written to St. Petersburg asking all the
editors of the new newspaper (at present there are seven of them: Bogdanov,
Rumyantsev, Bazarov, Lunacharsky, Orlovsky, Olminsky and myself) to send you a
joint and official request to join the editorial board. But events will not
wait, postal communication is interrupted, and I do not think I am justified in
postponing an essential step for what is really a mere formality. In fact, I am
absolutely sure of general agreement and joy on account of this proposal. I am
very well aware that all Bolsheviks have always regarded disagreement with you
as something temporary, due to exceptional circumstances. It goes without
saying, the struggle often involved us in steps, statements and actions which
were bound to make future unity more difficult, but there has always been areadinesson our part to unite, a consciousness of theextreme
abnormalityof the best force among RussianSocial-Democrats standing aloof from the work, a consciousness of the entire
movement’sextreme needof your guiding, close and immediate
participation. And we all firmly believe that if not today, then tomorrow, and
if not tomorrow, then the day after, our union with you will come about despite
all difficulties and obstacles.

Butit would be better if it were today rather than tomorrow. Things have now
taken such a turn thatwe may be too late, and we intend to exert every
effort not to be late.

Wouldyou care to work together with us? I should be extremely glad if you would
agree to meet me and talk this over. I am confident that a personal meeting
would remove many misunderstandings, and many seeming difficulties in the way
of unity would vanish at once. But should you not agree in general, or not agree
just now, I venture to take the liberty of touching on some of these
difficulties in advance.

Thesedifficulties are: 1) Your disagreements with many members of the new
editorial board. 2) Your disinclination to join either of the two halves of the
Social-Democratic Party.—The first difficulty, I think, is wholly
removable. We are in agreement with you on approximately nine-tenths of the
questions of theory and tactics, and to quarrel over one-tenth is not worth
while. You wanted, and still want, to correct some assertions, which you regard
as erroneous, in my writings. But nowhere at any time have I gone out of my way
specially to impose my views on any Social-Democrat, and none, positively none,
of the new editors has entered into an engagement to be
“Leninist”. Barsov’s speech at the Third Congress was an
expression of the general view in this respect. You consider that the
philosophical views of three of the seven persons mentioned are
erroneous.[2]But these three, too, have not attempted, and are not
attempting, to link these views of theirs with any official Party matter. And
these three—I am not speaking at random but on the basis of precise
knowledge of the facts—would be extremely glad to work jointly with
you. For you and us to part company politically now, at a time when your general
sympathy with the views of the Majority is known, among other things, from your
lecture, is evident from your latest writings, and is evident indi-rectly from the position adopted by Parvus, who is perhaps most in agreement
with you—to part company politically now would be extremely undesirable,
extremely inopportune, and extremely harmful for the Social-Democratic
movement.

Anda new legal newspaper, which will have an audience of tens, if not hundreds,
of thousands of workers—indeed, all the coming work in Russia at a time
when your immense knowledge and vast political experience are terribly needed by
the Russian proletariat—all this will providenew ground, on
which it will be so much easier to forget the past and work together on a real
live job. To pass from work in Geneva to work in St. Petersburg is a transition
that is exceptionally favourable, psychologically and from the Party
standpoint, for going over from disunity to unity, and I very much hope that we
shall not miss such an opportunity, which has not occurred since the Second Congress and which, probably, will not occur again so soon.

Here,however, is the second difficulty. Perhaps you do not want unity with one
half of the Party. You will demand unity of the whole Party as aconditio
sine qua nonfor your participation in the work. You are quite right in
holding that such unity is desirable and necessary. But is it possibleat
present? You yourself are inclined to answer this in the negative, for not
long ago you were proposing a federation.Todaythe broadest tribune
for our influence on the proletariat is adailynewspaper in
St. Petersburg (we shall be in a position to issue it in an edition of 100,000
copies and bring the price down to one kopek). Is a joint editorial board with
the Mensheviks conceivableat present? We think it is not. And so do
the Mensheviks. And so do you, judging from your proposal for a federation. Are
three newspapers really necessary? Cannot we get together for apoliticalorgan of revolutionary Social-Democracy when there are really
no organisational disagreements between us, and the Party’s coming out
into the open tomorrow will dispel all lingering fears about conspiracy. And the
revolution itself will sweep away our tactical differences with astonishing
speed; besides, you have not expressed any disagreement with theresolutionsof the Third Congress;and theseresolutions, after all, are the sole Party directive that
unites all of us Bolsheviks.

Itseems to me that under such circumstances your coming over to us is fully
possible, and it will not make future unity more difficult, but will rather
facilitate and accelerate it. Instead of the present struggle, which is being
protracted owing to your standing aloof, the revolutionary Social-Democratic
movement as a whole will be in a stronger position. The struggle, too, will
gain by it by becoming steadier, more disciplined. The general body of Social-
Democrats will at once feel confident, hopeful—a different atmosphere will
immediately be created, and the new newspaper, hour by hour, will win for itself
a leading position in the Social-Democratic movement, without looking backwards,
without going into details of the past, but only firmly and steadfastly leading
the working class in the present arena of struggle.

Iconclude by once again asking you to agree to meet me and by expressing the
general confidence of us Bolsheviks in the usefulness, importance and necessity
of working jointly with you.

Sincerelyyours,V. Ulyanov

[1]Theevents of the last few daysapply to the general political
strike in Russia in October 1905.

[2]Thethree persons were A. Bogdanov, V. Bazarov and A. Lunacharsky.